Braid: Is Canada 'broken' or just badly bent?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau leaves a press conference on his meeting with Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and B.C. Premier John Horgan on the deadlock over Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, in Ottawa on Sunday, April 15, 2018.Justin Tang / THE CANADIAN PRESS

UCP Leader Jason Kenney recently prompted a Twitter uproar with one short sentence: “Canada is broken.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded sharply at the national Liberal convention last weekend: “I love this country down to my bones and I will defend it — and our values — against anyone who says it’s broken.”

The truth may be in the middle: Canada isn’t broken yet, but it’s bending dangerously.

The key symptom is a growing refusal to respect legitimate decision-making, whether by the courts or regulatory bodies.

“I’m very concerned about how this will impact Canadian unity in the longer terms,” says Jim Horsman, who was Alberta’s intergovernmental minister during the great constitutional battle of the early 1980s.

He saw key institutions hold firm under great pressure. Today, he fears that acceptance of national norms is breaking down.

“We saw the example of how Quebec — or at least Montreal — took steps to prevent the east-west pipeline, successfully,” says Horsman, who calls current B.C. tactics in the Kinder Morgan pipeline dispute “very disturbing.”

Horsman points to B.C. Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver’s demand that the Supreme Court should decide on B.C.’s power to control bitumen. But when asked repeatedly if he’d respect a ruling against B.C., Weaver will not answer.

B.C. NDP leader John Horgan and B.C. Green party leader Andrew Weaver shake hands after signing an agreement on creating a stable minority government during a press conference in the Hall of Honour at Legislature in Victoria, B.C., on Tuesday, May 30, 2017. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chad Hipolito ORG XMIT: CAH505Chad Hipolito /
The Canadian Press

The federal NDP’s environment critic, Alexandre Boulerice, did exactly the same thing after his party called for a Supreme Court reference.

“Well, we’ll see,” he said, when asked if the NDP would bow to a ruling in favour of the pipeline.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the ultimate authority on law and governance in Canada. Its rulings are not conditional.

Horsman says, “When people are not ready to accept a Supreme Court ruling, what’s next?”

Advocates now tend to see rulings from all the courts — whether provincial, federal or Supreme — as strategic way stations and prologues to new resistance.

Trudeau carries some responsibility for this. He has often said “even though governments grant permits, ultimately only communities grant permission.”

In my view, that was a horrible mistake.

A protester stands on top of a trailer outside the main gates of Kinder Morgan in Burnaby, B.C.Canadian Press/Jonathan Hayward

Burnaby refuses to accept the pipeline. The whole thing is stalled there. And the prime minister has rhetorically endorsed the city’s stance.

If any community along the route of a linear national project has a veto, nothing will ever get built. Burnaby is the nightmare case — adamant refusal at the very end of the line.

Now, Trudeau’s only path to victory appears to include a broken promise and public investment in the project.

The PM provided B.C. with two other bad examples: cancelling the Northern Gateway project and changing emissions rules for the Energy East pipeline.

Northern Gateway had already been set back severely by the Federal Court, which overturned its approval for failing to consult with First Nations. Four months later, Trudeau declared it dead.

Infuriating as B.C. Premier John Horgan turned out to be, you can hardly blame him for drawing two lessons: Approvals are conditional — both in court and at the political level. And, you can change environmental rules halfway through.

The upshot is deep confusion about major projects and Ottawa’s ability to support the national economy.

Horsman contrasts this sharply with the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982.

Trudeau’s father, Pierre, first tried to bring the constitution home from Britain unilaterally, without consulting the provinces.

Eight provinces appealed to the Supreme Court. They won. The constitution was patriated with heavy input from the provinces, except Quebec, which refused to accept it.

Horsman was there for all the meetings. They were intense, complex, emotional and hugely important. One thing that struck him was the acceptance of the final deal, both by politicians and the general public.

Quebec cried betrayal, of course. The separatists were then in power.

But it was remarkable — and quintessentially Canadian — to see how all parties generally respected the ground rules and tolerated key decisions.

Today, that respect is seriously eroded, both by parochial zealots and dithering, confusing politicians.

Jim Horsman has the last words; a classic understatement: “Federal leadership in Canada has to be clear and understandable. And, I don’t think it is at the present time.”

This Week's Flyers

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.

If it wasn’t so darn important to our city, there’d be some degree of smug satisfaction with the awkward position in which both the premier and prime minister now find themselves embroiled in with this whole pipeline brouhaha.